James Cameron's Project 880/Avatar

John_Hudson said:
Good point

Although I would not know; I have never heard of Spielberg, Tarantino or Scorsese being A - Hat's.
Click to expand...

Spielberg works with *crack* producers.. they carry the weight so he can be
a near auteur. Going back to his roots, Julia Phillips is imfamous for how much
of a ballbreaker she was. Everyone that I know that was involved with her
on Close Encounters is still keeping garlic around, just in case she comes back :)

She also produced for Scorsese with similar results, both on-screen and off.

Kathleen Kennedy is no pushover... even going a few tiers down, Speilberg's
crew from Jurassic have moved on. My list of never work for again, includes
one of those alumni that allowed Spielberg to retain 'good cop' and has now
gone on to make life difficult for a whole new group of people :)

Bottom line, every sucessful director out there is either REALLY tough, or has
a 'thug' on staff to put the pressure on when things 'go wrong'.

For my stuff, I let my AD know from day 1 that they are going to be the
guy that everyone is going to hate. All the bad news comes from the AD,
allowing me to actually get on the side of the cast/crew. Good cop/bad cop.
 
Spielberg is the director who's impressing me most right now. He may be turning out deeply flawed movies, but the guy's experimenting in interesting ways and he uses the frame better than anyone else.

Cameron's no Spielberg, but he's willing to experiment with new stuff, too, and his track record's almost as good. I don't really care if he's a jerk if he gets the movie made, to be honest. If you've got too much of an ego, it starts to show up in your work and this hasn't been too big a problem with him so far.

Plus, if this is for real (I just read 1/3 of the scriptment--it's okay), it's going to be an event. New 3D technology, shot with "virtual cinematography" where everything's done in pre-production, an unheard of budget, and the perfect genre to accompany it (the whole thing seems to be a tour of this alien world.) This may not be a great movie, but it's going to be a cool one.

After all, I think Peter Jackson is a mediocre director artistically and couldn't get a good performance out of someone to save his life, but the fact that he gets such spectacular projects made counts for a lot.

James Cameron's one of the few directors who's both artistic and able to make huge spectacle efficiently and intelligently. Let's just hope it's not too long, since the scriptment feels a little uhh...exposition heavy.
 
There's being tough and then there's demeaning another human being.

I think that's the distinction that needs to be made.

In no way do i think a director should be a pushover allowing laziness, or insubordination among your crew. However if you have a group of guys who are following the plan and working their butts off for you, you should treat them with respect. Nobody wants to work with someone who is viewed as difficult. Remember Norma Desmond...
 
You don't have to be a pratt to be an effective director.

I worked on a film with a successful Asian director. They lit incense, had a feast, treated everyone with respect, and believe it or not the production was laid back. The actors responded better, and the crew acted as a cohesive whole.

As long as the directors vision is communicated effectively down through the ranks, the pratt-like behaviour is unnecessary. It's when there is ineffective communication combined with stress that personalities turn nasty.

I agree there are those tough as nails crew who get things done, but for the most part it's an uneccesary trait, in my book, and I don't think it really accomplishes that much. It's counterproductive in the long run to operate that kind of climate. At least I hope so. The examples of harsh run sets and egomania turning out amazing work, just stand out more than the amazing work that was created with a professionally run smooth laid back set.

There's enough pressure on a set without adding egomania and an atmosphere of fear. You can be a leader and a gentleman and still be strong. Maybe directors could learn a thing or two from the military. I've always admired how they can mix leadership, strength and respect in equal measure. :beer:

Cheers.

Like someone famous once said - "Power only ampllifies what is already there. If you're a gentleman you will be even more so, and if you're a dick, you'll be a super dick."

(quote modified for filter) :thumbsup:
 
Well I guess we all know who on this thread we're not going to do any work for. (I jest guy's) :huh: :laugh: :lipsrseal :evil:

"I think Peter Jackson is a mediocre director artistically and couldn't get a good performance out of someone to save his life"
Click to expand...

I see your point; I felt Kong grossly miscast; however felt LOTR, The Frighteners and Heavenly Creatures had nice performances (Nothing I would point a finger at anyway).

I definatley fall into the camp of chill as long as everyone is pulling the their weight.
 
I do agree that laid back sets are the ideal... there is another element that hasn't
been addressed. Thats the 'pecking order'. I've been on a few sets where the
producer, DP or talent 'overshadow' the clout of the director. The director ends
up as essentially a figurehead thats pretty much along for the ride or a co-director
at best. These also tend to be 'laid-back' sets as conflict is avoided as everyone
tries to satisfy the 'director-by-proxy'.

I saw this a lot with Disney's stable of first time directors, paired with experienced
DPs and producers.
 
Wow... This was a lively chat today. A good friend of mine bailed on Miami Vice because he couldn't handle Michael Mann screaming and being an absolute prick for 16 hours a day. And for him to quit a big fat day rate job.. must mean he's one hell of a big prick.

Some excellent points on this thread. That's why I love it. Different ideas.. and here's a joke that I love to tell. It can be applied to DP's especially well, so here goes.


What's the difference between God and a hollywood director?

Answer: God doesn't think he's a director.


And I call it a night!
 
John_Hudson said:
EVerytime I hear these stories I long more and more for an RR (Troublemaker) kind of situation !
Click to expand...

Hehe.. it was Troublemaker that really pushed me over the edge as far as leaving California! Skywalker Ranch was one hell of a train set.. RR has a slightly smaller scale one... I figured I could cram something HO scale into a place in Key West :)
 
Blaine said:
GROSSLY miscast. C'mon Adrian Brody? Jack Black? I don't THINK so.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you about Jack Black until I saw the film. I was really surprised and thought he was the 2nd best aspect, after Kong himself.

Just for the record, I am pretty laid back on set, and have never worked for an arsehole director, just plenty of arsehole producers. I think that a director has to be able to stand up for himself, which is easy if everyone else is cool and respectful, but if you have an awkward cast or crew member, you need to have some balls IMO.
 
"with great powers come great responsibility" anyone?

I honestly don't think being an a$$hole has anything to do with making good movies. Kubrick, Woody Allen, Wong Kar-Wai, Jarmusch, Wenders seem to be more low key and still make excellent filmmakers.

Being an a$$hole director just mean you exploit the power money and fame has given you.

I thought Titanic, Aliens and Terminator were very entertaining, but I wouldn't call it art.... well at least not Titanic... ;)
 
Draccan said:
"with great powers come great responsibility" anyone?

I honestly don't think being an a$$hole has anything to do with making good movies. Kubrick, Woody Allen, Wong Kar-Wai, Jarmusch, Wenders seem to be more low key and still make excellent filmmakers.

Being an a$$hole director just mean you exploit the power money and fame has given you.

I thought Titanic, Aliens and Terminator were very entertaining, but I wouldn't call it art.... well at least not Titanic... ;)
Click to expand...

One man's art is another man's poo poo. Whether you like it or not doesn't change the fact that it is art. Storytelling is an artform. You may not like the story or the way of telling it, but that doesn't make it any less art. Art is what we do. Some of us make GOOD art, some of us make BAD art, but it is still art. And as the saying goes: beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
 
I alway's find it odd people don't dig Titanic (Yes, you can resurect an entire thread about it)...

But, out of all Cameron's work; I'd say Titanic is the more artistic of them

What would youcall art Draacon ?

What would you call 'Titanic, Aliens, Terminator and Titanic' ?
 
John_Hudson said:
I alway's find it odd people don't dig Titanic (Yes, you can resurect an entire thread about it)...

But, out of all Cameron's work; I'd say Titanic is the more artistic of them

What would youcall art Draacon ?

What would you call 'Titanic, Aliens, Terminator and Titanic' ?
Click to expand...

Aliens is my #2 all time sci-fi movie right behind Blade Runner. It is #4 on my all time favorite movies regardless of genre. Terminator (the original) is another GREAT movie. #7 Sci-fi/#65 all time favorite. Titanic #41 in my top 100. Being entertaining and art ARE NOT mutually exclusive. It's hip to not like a movie that is a hit at the box office but the democracy of the box office has to mean something. People are lining up an plunking down their hard earned money for some reason. We may not always agree with the opinion of others but exactly who is it that determines whether something is art or not?
 
It's hip to not like a movie that is a hit at the box office

Exactly.

Titanic is the single example of this. I've never seen so many people say they didnt like it (A Blockbuster)
 
John_Hudson said:
I alway's find it odd people don't dig Titanic (Yes, you can resurect an entire thread about it)...

But, out of all Cameron's work; I'd say Titanic is the more artistic of them

What would youcall art Draacon ?

What would you call 'Titanic, Aliens, Terminator and Titanic' ?
Click to expand...


Well this is of course a can of worms. First of all I do believe it is and always have been about personal taste. There are thousands of ideas about what is art exactly and starting that discussion in this thread might not be very useful. But I can give you just one snippet of my thoughts about that:
For me art is something that wants to be more than just entertaining. Thus comes the didactic aspect - the wish to teach us / show us something in a new way.

In Titanic I have a hard time grasping what is Camerons message or what I can learn from this film, besides aesthetics. It is art for arts sake maybe. But there are no true metaphor, no depth. It answers all my questions - and for me art is something that makes me ask questions.

Terminator actually has a little bit of social criticism in its dystopic view of the future. One could argue to brush it of as sci-fi entertainment and rightly so, but I will defend the film of its approach to the future - and yes it did make me ask questions when I was younger.

I am not bashing the films - for a decade Alien + Aliens were my favourite films. I am a Ripley fan incarnate, but I just think one has to consider careful the message and value of the metaphor of a film before one put that sticker Art on it.
In many ways the discussion of whether or not something is art is useless (like all art in general hehe) - lets discuss what the it tries to tell instead.

And Cameron is the big hot shot American special effects dude no doubt - but his films does not contribute to the world in a way that it justifies treating employees like ****. If one can not create art / films / whatever without being a dick then maybe one should stay home and reconsider what it is one is trying to do and for who...

Just my 0.02$

LLD
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top